I know I'm a bit late to the party, and ive only been halfway paying attention, but I just want to ensure that we're not going to go down the path of making this a default setting. One of the current strengths is that only the resources needed are configured, this persistence has its uses but will ultimately hamper scalability, for example if I need to have 3000 bridges configured on every host even though they each only need a subset of 16 or so. On Jan 7, 2013 4:39 AM, "Likitha Shetty" <likitha.she...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Created the first draft of the Functional spec - > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/FS+-+Persistent+Networks > . > Will keep updating it based on the feedback. > > Thank you, > Likitha > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Manan Shah [mailto:manan.s...@citrix.com] > > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 10:26 PM > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM > > > > Chiradeep, Likitha, > > > > My take is that we need to support both kinds of networks (persistent as > well as > > non-persistent). Also, I don't think we can have this as a zone-wide > behavior > > because not all networks in a zone would need to be persistent. > > > > For example, if you are deploying a multi-tier application, you might > only want > > the DB tier to be persistent. > > > > Regards, > > Manan Shah > > > > > > > > > > On 1/3/13 11:31 PM, "Ram Ganesh" <ram.gan...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > >Does it make sense to introduce the flag(persistent) as part of > > >NetworkOffering? > > > > > >Thanks, > > >RamG > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Likitha Shetty [mailto:likitha.she...@citrix.com] > > >> Sent: 03 January 2013 18:05 > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM > > >> > > >> Please find my answers and queries inline. > > >> > > >> Thank you, > > >> Likitha > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > >> > From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com] > > >> > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:03 PM > > >> > To: CloudStack DeveloperList > > >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM > > >> > > > >> > So: > > >> > 1. There needs to be both kinds of networks available (persistent > > >> > as > > >> well as non- > > >> > persistent) in the same zone? > > >> Yes > > >> > > >> > From an end-user perspective this is going to be confusing since > > >> > she > > >> has not > > >> > been exposed to this internal state before (and generally the end- > > >> user is not > > >> > aware of the internal state of the infrastructure). > > >> +1. Say we have a new API 'ProvisionNetwork' to provision a network > > >> that has been created by the user. Since the user is not aware of the > > >> internal state of a network it would be confusing for the user to > > >> understand the difference b/w the 2 API's, CreateNetwork and > > >> ProvisionNetwork. > > >> > > >> > Is it OK to make this behavior > > >> > zone-wide, I.e., on every guest network? > > >> But this would mean having all networks (in the zone which has this > > >> behavior enabled) in an implemented state, even if a network has no > > >> physical device or VM deployed in it. This is changing the default CS > > >> behavior of not having resources allocated to a network if the > > >> network doesn't require it. Is that acceptable ? > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On 12/31/12 10:19 AM, "Manan Shah" <manan.s...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > >Thanks Likitha for picking up this requirement. You have correctly > > >> > >interpreted the requirements. > > >> > > > > >> > >Regards, > > >> > >Manan Shah > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >On 12/31/12 2:52 AM, "Likitha Shetty" <likitha.she...@citrix.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >>Hi, > > >> > >> > > >> > >>I would like to work on the proposed feature. > > >> > >>Restating the requirement. Currently in CloudStack when a user > > >> creates > > >> > >>a network, a db entry for that network is made, a VLAN ID is > > >> assigned > > >> > >>and the network is created only when the first VM on that network > > >> is > > >> > created. > > >> > >>With this feature CloudStack should allow users to provision the > > >> > >>created network i.e. assign a VLAN ID and implement the network > > >> > >>without having to deploy VM's on that network. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Comments/Suggestions on the requirement ? > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Thank you, > > >> > >>Likitha > > >> > >> > > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > > >> > >>From: Manan Shah [mailto:manan.s...@citrix.com] > > >> > >>Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:01 AM > > >> > >>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > >> > >>Subject: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Hi, > > >> > >> > > >> > >>I would like to propose a new feature for persistent networks > > >> without > > >> > >>running VMs. I have created a JIRA ticket and provided the > > >> > >>requirements at the following location. Please provide feedback > > >> > >>on > > >> the > > >> > requirements. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>JIRA Ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-706 > > >> > >>Requirements: > > >> > > > >> >>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Persistent+N > > >> >>et > > >> w > > >> > >>ork > > >> > >>s > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Regards, > > >> > >>Manan Shah > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
